Advertisement

Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development

  • Kate Dooley
  • Sivan Kartha
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper focuses on the risks associated with “negative emissions” technologies (NETs) for drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it in land-based sinks or underground. Modelled mitigation pathways for 1.5 °C assume NETs that range as high as 1000 Gt CO2. We argue that this is two to three times greater than the amount of land-based NETs that can be realistically assumed, given critical social objectives and ecological constraints. Embarking on a pathway that assumes unrealistically large amounts of future NETs could lead society to set near-term targets that are too lenient and thus greatly overshoot the carbon budget, without a way to undo the damage. Pathways consistent with 1.5 °C that rely on smaller amounts of NETs, however, could prove viable. This paper presents a framework for assessing the risks associated with negative emissions in the context of equity and sustainable development. To do this, we identify three types of risks in counting on NETs: (1) that NETs will not ultimately prove feasible; (2) that their large-scale deployment involves unacceptable ecological and social impacts; and (3) that NETs prove less effective than hoped, due to irreversible climate impacts, or reversal of stored carbon. We highlight the technical issues that need to be resolved and—more importantly—the value judgements that need to be made, to identify the realistic potential for land-based NETs consistent with social and environmental goals. Given the critical normative issues at stake, these are decisions that should be made within an open, transparent, democratic process. As input, we offer here an indicative assessment of the realistic potential for land-based NETs, based on a precautionary assessment of the risks to their future effectiveness and a provisional assessment of the extent to which they are in conflict with sustainable development goals related to land, food and climate.

Keywords

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) Ecosystem restoration SDGs Equity Sustainable development 

Abbreviations

BECCS

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

GHG

Greenhouse gasses

HANPP

Human appropriation of net primary production

HWP

Harvested wood products

IAM

Integrated assessment modelling

NETs

Negative emissions technologies

NPP

Net primary production

SDGs

Sustainable development goals

References

  1. Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J., (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision (No. ESA Working Paper 12-03). FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354, 182–183.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora, V. K., & Montenegro, A. (2011). Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nature Geoscience, 4, 514–518.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., & Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962.Google Scholar
  5. Bajželj, B., Richards, K. S., Allwood, J. M., Smith, P., Dennis, J. S., Curmi, E., et al. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4, 924–929.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlow, J., Lennox, G. D., Ferreira, J., Berenguer, E., Lees, A. C., Nally, R. M., et al. (2016). Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature, 535, 144–147.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., Quine, C. P., & Sayer, J. (2008). Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 925–951.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadell, J. G., & Schulze, E. D. (2014). Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nature Communications, 5, 5282.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CBD. (2012). SBD SBSTTA, Background report on improving forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting, Convention on Biodiversity, UN Doc UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/25.Google Scholar
  10. Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N. H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., et al. (2015). Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: An assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 916–944.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Plutzar, C. (2012). Dependency of global primary bioenergy crop potentials in 2050 on food systems, yields, biodiversity conservation and political stability. Energy Policy, 47, 260–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R. M., Ciais, P., et al. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4, 850–853.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbs, H. K., & Salmon, J. M. (2015). Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Applied Geography, 57, 12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta, J., & Arts, K. (2017). Achieving the 1.5 °C objective: Just implementation through a right to (sustainable) development approach. International Environmental Agreements.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9376-7Google Scholar
  15. Gustavsson, L., & Sathre, R. (2011). Energy and CO2 analysis of wood substitution in construction. Climate Change, 105, 129–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9876-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Running, S., Searchinger, T. D., & Kolby Smith, W. (2013). Bioenergy: How much can we expect for 2050? Environmental Research Letters, 8, 031004.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hochman, G., Rajagopal, D., Timilsina, G. R., & Zilberman, D. (2014). Impacts of biofuels on food prices. In G. R. Timilsina & D. Zilberman (Eds.), The impacts of biofuels on the economy, environment, and poverty (pp. 47–64). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holtsmark, B. (2015). Quantifying the global warming potential of CO2 emissions from wood fuels. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houghton, R. A. (2013). The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: Past trends and future potential. Carbon Management, 4, 539–546.  https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houghton, R. A., Byers, B., & Nassikas, A. A. (2015). A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Nature Climate Change, 5, 1022–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ICCI. (2015). Thresholds and closing windows: Risks of irreversible cryosphere climate change. Paris: International Cryosphere Climate Initiative.Google Scholar
  22. IPCC. (2014). Agriculture forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In O. Edenhofer et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, C. D., Ciais, P., Davis, S. J., Friedlingstein, P., Gaser, T., & Peters, G. P. (2016). Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 9.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095012.Google Scholar
  24. Kemp-Benedict, E., Kartha, S., & Fencl, A. (2012). Biomass in a low-carbon economy: Resource scarcity, climate change, and business in a finite world. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Kolby Smith, W., Zaho, M., & Running, S. (2012). Global Bioenergy capacity as constrained by observed biospheric productivity rates. BioScience, 62, 911–922.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laestadius, L., Maginnis, S., Minnemeyer, S., Potapov, P., Saint-Laurent, C., & Sizer, N. (2011). Mapping opportunities for forest landscape restoration. Unasylva, 62, 47–48.Google Scholar
  27. Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma, 123, 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Parrotta, J. A. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science, 310, 1628–1632.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawson, S., Blundell, A., Cabarle, B., Basik, N., Jenkins, M., & Canby, K. (2014). Consumer goods and deforestation: an analysis of the extent and nature of illegality in forest conversion for agriculture and timber plantations. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar
  30. Mackey, B. (Ed.). (2008). Green carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. Canberra: ANU E Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mackey, B., Prentice, I. C., Steffen, W., House, J. I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H., et al. (2013). Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, 3, 552–557.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meadowcroft, J. (2013). Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Climate Change, 118, 137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0684-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miyake, S., Renouf, M., Peterson, A., McAlpine, C., & Smith, C. (2012). Land-use and environmental pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: A review. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 650–658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nilsson, S. (2012). Availability of cultivable land to meet expected demand in food, fibre and fuel. In F. Ingemarson, & S. Thunander (Eds.), The global need for food, fibre and fuel: Land use perspectives on constraints and opportunities in meeting future demand (pp. 37–42). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.Google Scholar
  35. Nilsson, M. (2017). Important interactions among the sustainable development goals under review at the high-level political forum 2017. WP no 2017-06 Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden.Google Scholar
  36. Nilsson, A. E., Gerger Swartling, Å., & Eckerberg, K. (2012). Knowledge for local climate change adaptation in Sweden: Challenges of multilevel governance. Local Environment, 17, 751–767.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.678316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2013). Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 110(13), 4956–4961.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214786110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., et al. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333, 988–993.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Fuss, S., Jackson, R. B., Korsbakken, J. I., et al. (2017). Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change, 7, 118–122.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.  https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V., et al. (2015). Energy System transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change, 5, 519–528.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. RRI. (2014). Recognizing indigenous and community rights: Priority steps to advance development and mitigate climate change. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
  44. RRI. (2015). Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
  45. Searchinger, T., & Heimlich, R. (2015). Avoiding bioenergy competition for food crops and land (Creating a Sustainable Food Future, No. 9). World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Shaffer, G. (2010). Long-term effectiveness and consequences of carbon dioxide sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 3, 464–467.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, L. J., & Torn, M. S. (2013). Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Climate Change, 118, 89–103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0682-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stevens, C., Winterbottom, R., Springer, J., & Reytar, K. (2014). Securing rights, combating climate change: How strengthening community forest rights mitigates climate change. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Strassburg, B. B. N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., Davies, R. G., Gibbs, H. K., Lovett, A., et al. (2010). Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 3, 98–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00092.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tavoni, M., & Socolow, R. (2013). Modeling meets science and technology: An introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Climate Change, 118, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0757-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., & Mosseler, A. (2014). Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change: A synthesis of the biodiversity, resilience, stability relationship in forest ecosystems, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  52. Tokarska, K. B., & Zickfeld, K. (2015). The effectiveness of net negative carbon dioxide emissions in reversing anthropogenic climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 094013.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNFCCC. (2015). Paris agreement (No. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris.Google Scholar
  54. Williamson, P. (2016). Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530, 153–155.  https://doi.org/10.1038/530153a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiltshire, A., & Davies-Barnard, T. (2015). Planetary limits to BECCS negative emissions (No. V1.1), 1104872/AVOID 2 WPD.2a Report 1. AVOID 2 programme.Google Scholar
  56. Zickfeld, K., Arora, V. K., & Gillett, N. P. (2012). Is the climate response to CO2 emissions path dependent? Geophysical Reseach Letters, 39, L05703.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050205.Google Scholar
  57. Ziegler, A. D., Phelps, J., Yuen, J. Q., Webb, E. L., Lawrence, D., Fox, J. M., et al. (2012). Carbon outcomes of major land-cover transitions in SE Asia: Great uncertainties and REDD + policy implications. Global Change Biology, 18, 3087–3099.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02747.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian-German Climate & Energy CollegeUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.School of GeographyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Stockholm Environment InstituteSomervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations